When did God tell the Israelites that He was three persons?

[Soapy]

While there are traces of plural deity in the scripture Judaism eradicated the idea of plural manifestation from their theology.
…

Judaism did not ‘sought to eradicate plural manifestations from their theology’… it was NEVER in their theology!

But if you meant that they KEPT IT OUT then that is likely true. As the Israelites wandered from place to place they obviously encountered nations and tribes that worshipped plural gods. The worship ceremonies would have seems attractive to the Israelites and make them wonder if indeed their God was a truly the only God. These other ‘gods’ had names that could be called upon - specific god for specific range of worldly things. The one true God did not have a name that the Israelites could cal upon and they would envy such aspects. At that time they simply called upon (the equivalent in Hebrew of ‘God’). But finally when they were enslaved in Egypt and Moses was called by God to free them, the people of Israel had gotten so used to naming the god that was supposed to direct them that they demanded a name for THEIR ONE GOD. That aspect is related in the story of Moses’ encounter at the burning bush. Because God knew the hearts of the Israelites had been seduced by the Egyptian gods having names, He finally created a name for himself to convince them:

• ‘’I am who I am’” He said (Meaning that He is never changing, a constant, eternal)
• “‘Therefore, say unto them that my name is “YHWH” - meaning: ‘I Am’ (a shortened form of the statement - in fact there is no name more wondrous than that.)

Note though that ‘I AM’ is NOT His NAME… it is only the MEANING OF THE NAME… Consider the MEANING of YOUR NAME… Consider other biblical names… do others call on you/them by the meaning of their nsme? Consider that ‘Peter’ means ‘The Rock’. Then consider the verse: ‘The Rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness WAS CHRIST!’. So, Peter must be Christ, yes??? No!!

Additionally, God told them that his name (‘YHWH’) was for eternity. Yet Trinitarians refuse to acknowledge what God commanded. They claim: ‘God does not have a name…. Because we don’t know how to pronounce it.!!’ ???

Also, they attribute many TITLES to God as a substitute for His name…. Now, I’m no distinguished linguist but I can certainly understand the difference between a TITLE and a MAME. So why does trinity fail in this regard (and all the other many regards…!) Well, it’s simple: When they come across that which goes against their failed doctrine they simply fudge things to make them work, like fudging the calculations of the solar system to make it seem like all the planets and even the sun orbited the earth….

I’m intrigued as to how they managed to finally acknowledged that they were wrong!!

To the Jews, Elohim was the God of gods, while Yahweh was the God of Israel. Jesus referred to all divine beings in unity as God.

The bolded part is total rubbish. It doesn’t even make sense as a sentence. There is only one divine being, and that is YHWH:The Father: ‘God over all WHOM ARE CALLED ‘Gods’.

The definition of ‘God’ (in short) is ‘Mighty Ones’, ‘Heroes’, ‘Glorious/Majestic/Wonderous’ ones’. As usual there are other meanings and if applies here, too. Thus, ‘God’ is a TITLE FOR one who is the HEAD of a mighty, glorious, heroic, wondrous system. Even one who is the provably the GREATEST, the MIGHTIEST, of a system or organisation. Therefore it can be said that:

• A judge in his courtroom is GOD over all in the courtroom
• A Father is God in his own household
• A lion is God of the jungle (just a saying since Lions don’t live in jungles … perhaps ‘God of the wild beasts’ is better!)
• A Principal is God in his own school

Note the CONTEXT that the TITLE is applied to. Therefore, in all the examples given there is another who is greater, more heroic, more majestic over them: A judge is only ‘God’ IN HIS COURTROOM. Outside there are authorities ABOVE HIM!! Therefore, extrapolate upwards and it will be seen that ALMIGHTY GOD is ‘GOD’ above all else!

 

[metis]

Judaism did not ‘sought to eradicate plural manifestations from their theology’… it was NEVER in their theology!

That depends on how one defines "Judaism" and exactly when did "Judaism" first begin? Prior to 3500 b.p., we do not have a single example of monotheism anywhere in the world, including the Middle East.

 

[Colt]

Yahweh was the name of the nature God of the Sini volcano which the Israelites adopted when encamped there. There are a number of names for God in Judaism.

"Let us create man in our own image". This is an indication of the Trinity.

 

[Baroodi]

Trinity is uncrystalized man made concept as an add on. so many add on totally changed Christianity to a new invention which I can say secularized Christianity

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh, you mean this one doesn’t count:

• “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is ONE”!

The context follows and leads on all else spoken by God such wherein God tells the Israelites to have no other God but He since no other ‘God’ is true.

And your previous suggestions… This one God IS the God of all people, tribes, and nations IN OVERARCHING VIEW. However, on a local level each tribe, and nation ascribe to themself a CREATED God and forgoes the true God. So saying, the true God views the Israelite nation as the only one that has a tendency to follow His spirit and do His works… therefore this God says that Israel is his Son (and this definition is important : A Son is he who does the works of his Father!)

What you are quoting, right now, is what is called the Sh'ma; and you are misquoting it.

First of all, that is not what I replied about. I replied about this directly claim by you when you criticized catholics for not being able to support trinity in your scripture. I pointed out the problems.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He

But consider what the Sh'ma says versus what you have claimed it says and which you wish for it to say. It actually says "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." There's only one Sh'ma. It says exactly what it is supposed to. If you truncate it, its not the Sh'ma. You wanted it to say something, but it wasn't saying exactly what you wanted and so you changed it. At the exact same time you accused catholics of not deriving their ideas from scripture, as if that was some kind of thing they were required to do. So you not only did not derive your ideas about God from this scripture which does not say what you think it says, but you have somehow projected your own expectations for yourself onto the catholics. They are expected to do what you are unable to do yourself.

It doesn't say "Hear oh Israel the LORD your God is one!" That is not what it says, not at all. It says precisely "Hear oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one" and its not the same thing, not at all the same as what you have said. You probably can't even explain why it is phrased this way. You changed the words, because you assumed part of it was unnecessary. You assumed it was unnecessary because you didn't understand what it was saying.

So prove me wrong. Tell me this: why instead of saying "...the LORD our God is one..." does it say instead "...the LORD our God, the LORD is one...?" Why the extra 'LORD'? I bet you can't, but here you are talking like you know all about it.

 

[Soapy]

What you are quoting, right now, is what is called the Sh'ma; and you are misquoting it.

First of all, that is not what I replied about. I replied about this directly claim by you when you criticized catholics for not being able to support trinity in your scripture. I pointed out the problems.


But consider what the Sh'ma says versus what you have claimed it says and which you wish for it to say. It actually says "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." There's only one Sh'ma. It says exactly what it is supposed to. If you truncate it, its not the Sh'ma. You wanted it to say something, but it wasn't saying exactly what you wanted and so you changed it. At the exact same time you accused catholics of not deriving their ideas from scripture, as if that was some kind of thing they were required to do. So you not only did not derive your ideas about God from this scripture which does not say what you think it says, but you have somehow projected your own expectations for yourself onto the catholics. They are expected to do what you are unable to do yourself.

It doesn't say "Hear oh Israel the LORD your God is one!" That is not what it says, not at all. It says precisely "Hear oh Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one" and its not the same thing, not at all the same as what you have said. You probably can't even explain why it is phrased this way. You changed the words, because you assumed part of it was unnecessary. You assumed it was unnecessary because you didn't understand what it was saying.

So prove me wrong. Tell me this: why instead of saying "...the LORD our God is one..." does it say instead "...the LORD our God, the LORD is one...?" Why the extra 'LORD'? I bet you can't, but here you are talking like you know all about it.

You are right that I did not quote the exact words as shown in the scriptures.

So, what exactly, then, is the sh’ma saying?

To me, and to the Israelites, it is saying that they should have no other God but He, YHWH (‘The LORD’): ‘YHWH, Our God; YHWH is the ONLY GOD’

Trinitarians claim that it is saying that God is a unity of three persons. How is it doing that?

 

[Brickjectivity]

You are right that I did not quote the exact words as shown in the scriptures.

So, what exactly, then, is the sh’ma saying?

To me, and to the Israelites, it is saying that they should have no other God but He, YHWH (‘The LORD’): ‘YHWH, Our God; YHWH is the ONLY GOD’

Trinitarians claim that it is saying that God is a unity of three persons. How is it doing that?

I have never heard trinitarians claim this verse is about trinity. Some protestants try to source trinity from scripture, but I've never heard of them trying to use this one.

You have harder problems to solve, such as showing God ought to be in the Sh'ma: 'God' is a catholic term that the ancient Israelites don't have in their vocabulary. The Interlinear will reveal this. It is a catholic word only slightly older than trinity, placed into our bibles by catholics as a suggestion about the Hebrew text. The catholics would have us believe the ancient Hebrews believed in God. Its a catholic suggestion, right or wrong. 'El' is the Hebrew and, you haven't shown that El is the same as God but have simply adopted the catholic interpretation of it as if God were in the original scriptures. So you require the catholics to prove trinity from scripture, but you swallow whole their claim that God should be in it.

I doubt that you or anyone can prove from canon that 'El' originally means 'God', so your problem is tougher than the one you put to the catholics.

 

[DNB]

There is no Jewish scripture in which God says he is one God

Deut. 6:4–5

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

 

[dybmh]

While there are traces of plural deity in the scripture Judaism eradicated the idea of plural manifestation from their theology.

To the Jews, Elohim was the God of gods, while Yahweh was the God of Israel. Jesus referred to all divine beings in unity as God.

In your view, do all the divine beings share a single will?

 

[Soapy]

I have never heard trinitarians claim this verse is about trinity. Some protestants try to source trinity from scripture, but I've never heard of them trying to use this one.

You have harder problems to solve, such as showing God ought to be in the Sh'ma: 'God' is a catholic term that the ancient Israelites don't have in their vocabulary. The Interlinear will reveal this. It is a catholic word only slightly older than trinity, placed into our bibles by catholics as a suggestion about the Hebrew text. The catholics would have us believe the ancient Hebrews believed in God. Its a catholic suggestion, right or wrong. 'El' is the Hebrew and, you haven't shown that El is the same as God but have simply adopted the catholic interpretation of it as if God were in the original scriptures. So you require the catholics to prove trinity from scripture, but you swallow whole their claim that God should be in it.

I doubt that you or anyone can prove from canon that 'El' originally means 'God', so your problem is tougher than the one you put to the catholics.

I didn’t even read any further than this:

• “I have never heard trinitarians claim this verse is about trinity.”

Wow!!! Where have you been hiding …. The “Sh’ma”, as you call it, IS VERY MUCH a claim of TRINITY for Trinitarians……!!!!!

What you CAN SAY is that it is a ridiculous claim … but to say you’ve never heard it to be a claim of trinity IS AMAZING…. So what else have you not heard… what else are you yet to learn… what else are you unaware of…. Yet you are ready to cast aspersions on those who HAVE HEARD and DO DISPUTE these irreverent things….!!????

 

[Soapy]

I have never heard trinitarians claim this verse is about trinity. Some protestants try to source trinity from scripture, but I've never heard of them trying to use this one.

You have harder problems to solve, such as showing God ought to be in the Sh'ma: 'God' is a catholic term that the ancient Israelites don't have in their vocabulary. The Interlinear will reveal this. It is a catholic word only slightly older than trinity, placed into our bibles by catholics as a suggestion about the Hebrew text. The catholics would have us believe the ancient Hebrews believed in God. Its a catholic suggestion, right or wrong. 'El' is the Hebrew and, you haven't shown that El is the same as God but have simply adopted the catholic interpretation of it as if God were in the original scriptures. So you require the catholics to prove trinity from scripture, but you swallow whole their claim that God should be in it.

I doubt that you or anyone can prove from canon that 'El' originally means 'God', so your problem is tougher than the one you put to the catholics.

Your argument after the sh’ma is simply playing ‘devils advocate’.

I have pointed out MANY MANY TIMES that the word ‘God’ is of German origin…

I have stated as many times that the TERM ‘God’ is BOTH a TITLE and a SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE.

The title, ‘God’, is like saying: ‘Monarch’, ‘King’, ‘Majesty’, ‘Lord’, ‘Sir’, ‘Mr’…

A title refers to a contextual position of authority over a group of members.

It is NOT A NAME… a NAME is personal …

It is NOT PERSONAL… A title is ubiquitous…

As a superlative adjective the word ‘God’ would mean such as:

• ‘Most Heroic’, ‘Mightiest’, ‘Most Glorious’, ‘Greatest’

Now, with regard to the use of ‘El’ or ‘God’, in respect of the above, I agree that using a dual purpose word DOES CAUSE CONFUSION… but that is exactly what Catholicism wants to do so as to confuse it’s congregation concerning its fallacious trinity ideology. It’s the same way they chose to translate the NAME of ‘El’ as ‘LORD’… which, conveniently for them, is the same SPELLING as ‘Lord’ (a TITLE - not His NAME!).

And, just in case you haven’t heard it: YES, there are even some Trinitarians who claim Jesus IS GOD because God is called ‘LORD’ and Jesus is called ‘Lord’.,,,, I know - you just couldn’t make it up yet there it is….

But all in all, i do not have any problem in using the word ‘God’ instead of ‘El’. Afterall, the ones we talk to only use ‘God’. I’ve had problems that result only in pure pointless arguments even with those who write ‘G-d’ instead of ‘God’. I’ve assured the writer that writing ‘God’ is not somehow irreverent but they won’t have it …. It’s pointless to to try for PERFECT LANGUAGE if the understanding is there. Where the issue occurs is when the words used are purpose designed to deceive or confuse.

As it is said, if you have to be deceitful to prove your case then your case is highly likely to be untrue!!

 

[Soapy]

In your view, do all the divine beings share a single will?

Sorry for the injection but the answer is most assuredly:

• “EVERY LIVING ENTITY HAS A WILL OF ITS OWN”

Living entities are not ‘Robots’. God did not create living entities to behave in a pre-programmed fixed pattern. Aside from humanity (made in the image of God) living entities do exist through a CYCLE - but within that cycle there is the free Will to ADAPT according to changing situations. And some entities do and some do not adapt quickly enough to survive.

If by ‘Divine Beings’ you mean ‘Angels’, then ALSO ‘YES’! Angels have free Wills BUT they also know that if they do not confirm to the Will of God then they become DEMON Angels… and there is no salvation for them. ..

So how is their Will a free Will if they cannot choose their own way: Well, THEY CAN!!! But they know the consequences if they do not!!

An angel conforming to what God does not have as a Will is a damaged angel - and God cannot have damaged angels in his party of powers!

 

[Colt]

In your view, do all the divine beings share a single will?

Good question. I would say they are divinely co-ordinated.

20 men with 20 will's become something different when they form a soccer team. They become motivated to a singleness of purpose. ALL beings of relative divinity would have a singleness of purpose. They are One, they are God.

Divine beings would be motivated for one singleness of purpose and that would be to do the will of the Universal Father.

In the case of God creating man in his own image (the Trinity) we have the pure spirit of the Universal Father within.

 

[Brian2]

I didn’t even read any further than this:

• “I have never heard trinitarians claim this verse is about trinity.”

Wow!!! Where have you been hiding …. The “Sh’ma”, as you call it, IS VERY MUCH a claim of TRINITY for Trinitarians……!!!!!

What you CAN SAY is that it is a ridiculous claim … but to say you’ve never heard it to be a claim of trinity IS AMAZING…. So what else have you not heard… what else are you yet to learn… what else are you unaware of…. Yet you are ready to cast aspersions on those who HAVE HEARD and DO DISPUTE these irreverent things….!!????

I have never heard that the Shema shows that there is a trinity, even though I can imagine that most Christians claim that "one" in Hebrew "echad" is a compound "one" and so the possibility is there that YHWH is a trinity.
I would say that the Shema cannot be used to show that the trinity is not a possibility even if "echad" cannot be used as a compound "one" in that place.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

You are partially correct. God is uniquely one, but according to hundreds of verses in both testaments, three in one.

 

[Soapy]

I have never heard that the Shema shows that there is a trinity, even though I can imagine that most Christians claim that "one" in Hebrew "echad" is a compound "one" and so the possibility is there that YHWH is a trinity.
I would say that the Shema cannot be used to show that the trinity is not a possibility even if "echad" cannot be used as a compound "one" in that place.

The ‘Shema’ does not show that God is a trinity… the point is not even that ‘YOU’ have never heard it spoken as being so - It’s the FACT that it has been in many debates.

It is a great twister claim of Trinitarians who see the fallacy and want to seem ‘on board’ to deny that they ever heard of a particular trinity fallacy. The denial also manifest itself wherein a trinitarian claims he has never heard of a claim made by a different trinitarian sect. The point is that ALL SECTS of trinitarianism makes horrendously obvious errors of ideology regarding a three-person god. The argument against them is not about which sect says what about an impossible God belief.

You stated in an earlier post that only the Father is God… or the gist was so….!

But why do I get the feeling that you were holding off from claiming that the Son, and the spirit of YHWH were also the only God?

 

[Soapy]

You are partially correct. God is uniquely one, but according to hundreds of verses in both testaments, three in one.

There is not a verse anywhere in the scriptures that makes a claim that YHWH GOD is three in one.

If you think so then please produce it (Just remember that anything you produce will have been decimated wherever it was presented many times over.)

 

[MJ Bailey]

Omnipotence does not come with a number. God can be anything or nothing only at
HIS" choice. Muhammad and Christ have talked and been seen together. Maybe the One allowing this to happen would be considered a third party? Even though, there is only One God with or without numerological stance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is a great twister claim of Trinitarians who see the fallacy and want to seem ‘on board’ to deny that they ever heard of a particular trinity fallacy.

I didn’t even read any further than this:

• “I have never heard trinitarians claim this verse is about trinity.”

Wow!!! Where have you been hiding …. The “Sh’ma”, as you call it, IS VERY MUCH a claim of TRINITY for Trinitarians……!!!!!

In response to your emotion I have done a search and found something like what you're talking about, but I've never heard anyone try to make this sort of argument, truly. I haven't been hiding.

Now, with regard to the use of ‘El’ or ‘God’, in respect of the above, I agree that using a dual purpose word DOES CAUSE CONFUSION… but that is exactly what Catholicism wants to do so as to confuse it’s congregation concerning its fallacious trinity ideology. It’s the same way they chose to translate the NAME of ‘El’ as ‘LORD’… which, conveniently for them, is the same SPELLING as ‘Lord’ (a TITLE - not His NAME!).

Which must be frustrating, but what I'm saying is you have adopted their usage 'God' in the Sh'ma.

For example in a reply to me:

Oh, you mean this one doesn’t count:

• “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is ONE”!

The context follows and leads on all else spoken by God such wherein God tells the Israelites to have no other God but He since no other ‘God’ is true.

And your previous suggestions… This one God IS the God of all people, tribes, and nations IN OVERARCHING VIEW. However, on a local level each tribe, and nation ascribe to themself a CREATED God and forgoes the true God. So saying, the true God views the Israelite nation as the only one that has a tendency to follow His spirit and do His works… therefore this God says that Israel is his Son (and this definition is important : A Son is he who does the works of his Father!)

A question: does recitation of the Sh'ma include a hope that all people will be included? That would go far in lending credibility to translating 'Elohim' as 'God', because it would make it be less about only one small group of people and more like a prayer for everyone everywhere. In the quoted post it is assumed that Israel knows all about God already and is just using 'Elohim' as their term for that, but can such be shown from scripture prior to the catholic scripture? (Of course the gospels claim that it can, since they claim everything about Jesus can be.) Paul says "You were once aliens..." (Ephesians 2:2) Saying that the 'Elohim' in the Sh'ma has any connection with us depends upon a successful adoption of us. It requires that we are not aliens anymore. If we are not then 'God' could be a legitimate translation.

Its got diddly squat to do with a 'Trinity' though. Honestly I thought this must be a straw argument for you even bringing this up.

 

[Brian2]

You stated in an earlier post that only the Father is God… or the gist was so….!

But why do I get the feeling that you were holding off from claiming that the Son, and the spirit of YHWH were also the only God?

Jesus said that the Father is the only true God. I should not contradict that.